« EMPTINESS | A COLLAGE FROM THE SEVENTIES » |
Continuing making order in my working space, I have found a painting from 2000 lying under paper rolls and other garbage on my cupboard. It was a shock.
The painting seemed so perfect to me that I immediately asked myself: am I on the right way? Was it a good thing abandoning this kind of painting? So, in order get my ideas a little clearer about that, I'll try to analyze the situation.
These paintings came after a series of abstract paintings made with industrial lacquer. I liked the hazardous outcome of these paintings. Later, I took them up and glued some figurative elements in them. The result seemed stunning to me. But after about 50 paintings in that style, I got bored of it and went over to "pure" collage. Looking back after 9 years, I consider this as a very happy period. But as all delights, I felt that I was repeating myself, that my paintings became too pleasant to my eyes. Comparing them to my collages, I felt that there was much more to do than landscapes. But I retained the idea of collaged (I said: "upgraded") paintings.
During a long discussion with my friend Chantal, she said that this painting was on the material aspect of painting, the flow of color. I said that it reminded me somewhere of Soutine's landscapes, a burst of energy. The painting is completely coherent in spite of the fragmentary character of the composition. This means that there is still "a painting", even if it is scrambled. Or, there is harmony. My later works are less coherent, they are disrupted. I think that I felt that these "gardens" were a bit of paradise in my artistic work, but that I had to go out in order to discover new territories, with stones and thorns I must admit, but I like - from time to time go back to this paradise lost: making very coherent collages or looking at these paintings from 1995-2000.
Form is loading...
You must be logged in to see the comments. Log in now!